U.S. companies like Facebook are struggling with how to deal with hate speech, complying with restrictive foreign laws while upholding the traditions of free speech in America guaranteed by the First Amendment. Even though Facebook and Google allocate personnel to stamp out hate speech and phony information, some want even more restrictions just as American conservatives fear that would silence conservative voices. (The New York Times, April 21, 2019, by Cecilia Kang)
Daphne Keller of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, January 29, 2019, examines the complicated and vital function of internet platforms, our reliance on the internet companies as “modern public squares,” government’s role in deciding internet content and the platforms’ role in regulation. Keller describes the present approaches as “disjointed”: “Platforms face constant public pressure to remove more lawful speech, punctuated by occasional demands to remove less. Free-expression advocates who focus on what they see as abuses of private power by platforms find themselves with few legal tools, since the Constitution protects speech rights against state—not private—interference. Constitutional and human-rights litigators, skilled in fighting government abuses, may see no room to object and no one to sue when private companies silence online speakers. Governments’ ability to indirectly restrain lawful expression is only amplified when the law provides few or no checks on private platforms’ power over online speech.” New government policies and laws are needed to clarify the role of the platforms and government in providing the citizenry with a free, open and just internet.
For recent FAC coverage of the story, click here, here and here.